The Master and Margarita

Author: Mikhail Bulgakov

Translators: Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky

Rating: 2/5

The devil and his entourage appear in Moscow. Chaos ensues.

Spoilers ahead.

Detailed Summary

Satan appears in Moscow to Berlioz, an editor of a magazine or something, and Ivan Nikolaevich Ponyrev aka the poet “Homeless” as a foreign professor named Woland. He predicts Berlioz’s death and later, Berlioz is run over by a tram and his head is severed just like how Woland said. Homeless freaks out and tries to get Woland amd his gang–Behemoth (a giant black cat), Koroviev and Azazello (the one with the fang and red hair)–arrested but is sent to a mental institute instead. He meets the Master who was an author. His work about Pontius Pilate was rejected (I think) and he burnt the manuscript and rejected everyone and everything including his lover Margarita. There are scenes of Woland and the gang causing general havoc. They put on a magic show where they rain money and other things on the spectators and take over Berlioz’s apartment. There are also scenes with Pontius Pilate where he has to decide on the death sentence for Yeshua Ha-Notsri (Jesus).

Margarita hates the life she lives. Azazello meets her and gives her an ointment and tells her to attend the Devil’s ball. The ointment makes her young and beautiful and turns her into a witch. She flies naked on a broomstick and exacts vengeance on everyone who did the Master wrong. Her husband is turned into a pig and her housekeeper is turned into a witch too by the ointment. At the ball, she greets all the people from hell. Satan aka Woland gives her a wish. She asks for a woman named Frieda from the ball to not have to choke her baby everyday. Woland lets Margarita do so but says Margarita hasn’t actually used up her wish. She asks for the Master to be returned to her. Homeless had met the Master at the institute and he had told him his story. The Master is brought to Margarita and the couple are taken to an apartment. Mathew the Levite tells Woland the couple have to be taken to an afterlife of peace(?) so Woland sends them poisoned wine. The Master and Margerita die and Azazello takes their souls to Satan. They’re taken to a place of their own. Woland and his gang (including the Master and Margarita) move away from Moscow after a few more pranks. The authorities explain the events as logically as possible and soon all memory of Woland is forgotten. Margarita reveals that Pontius Pilate’s story ends with him being set free and overcoming his guilt at having condemned Yeshua.

Plot and Pacing

I did not enjoy this book very much and that disappoints me greatly. I get that it’s meant to be this satire of Soviet life and it almost has cult-like status. If only it hadn’t been so goddamn boring.

Not everything sucked. The first part was really well-written (although it petered out near the end of the section). I was amused by Berlioz’s confidence in his literary opinions when most of his facts were incorrect. My jaw dropped when he died within a few pages of meeting Woland. Homeless’ desire to root out Woland and his buddies had quite a few gems. Sharp jabs are made at the way society operated during the time. Behemoth the cat is forced off the tram despite having his money ready because the rules state cats aren’t allowed on the tram. Forget the fact that he’s a walking and talking cat, nope, the laws rule supreme! I don’t know much about what Soviet life was like and I was meaning to do some reading on it. I tried but got bored (and now my eyes are burning from staring at my screen for so long). It seems, however, that people would blindly follow anything that was issued by the governent. Paranoia reigned. It was every man and woman for his-/herself. It almost seems as though society at large lacked the ability to feel any sense of wonder at, well, anything whether it be art or the natural world.

Woland’s ability to just make things happen was pretty funny too. Papers would magically get signed, affairs would somehow sort themselves out. Perhaps that was meant to represent how there wasn’t really a proper way of handling matters. People in charge (the beaurocrats?) could cover up scandals as easily as a child “cleans” their room by shoving everyhing underneath the bed.

One of my favourite scenes was the Variety show where Woland and friends expose all the corruption and greediness that exists in people. It was frankly embarrassing to read about how the women rushed onto stage to get their pretty dresses and how everyone was concerned with catching as much money as possible from the roof (and doing a better job than Harry Potter from the first film). I think that scene was meant to show how we are all inherently terrible people and it doesn’t take much for that side to overpower any other logical thought.

The Master seemed to have many parallels with Bulgakov. Bulgakov himself found it difficult to get published. I think he also received harsh criticism for his work which only made it harder to publish his writing. The Master too suffers at the hands of critics and eventually believes his manuscript is a worthless collection of papers. But then again,

“Forgive me, but I don’t believe you,’ Woland replied, ‘that cannot be: manuscripts don’t burn.”

When all is said and done, when lives are lived and lost, all that remains is art.

Bulgakov is also ruthless with Christianity. When Berlioz is talking to Homeless and Woland, he absolutely tears apart the beliefs of the religion like Mary being a virgin yet still giving birth to Jesus. There’s also the alternate myth thing where Yeshua (Jesus) is shown to be quite meek.

This book was definitely very weird and weird is great. There’s nothing wrong with weird. Satan isn’t the villain but just exists. A thousand different things happen at the same time yet they somehow manage to form a kind of narrative. With that being said, I was bored a quarter of the way through with the book. The pacing was off. There weren’t enough Behemoth scenes. And I felt lost a lot of the time especially with the Yeshua/Pontius chapters and the long names (although you can’t really help the latter). I feel like I’m missing being excluded from this hilarious joke and it doesn’t feel good.

Characters

Homeless was an overall endearing character. I did chuckle quite a bit when he went on his rampage, half-naked, down the streets of Moscow trying to raise awareness about Woland being a fraud. Homeless even had a Gollum-moment around the time he is in the mental asylum and tried to understand why he had gotten so worked up about Berlioz’s death. I found that quite funny.

I had issues with Margarita. Apparently, during Soviet rule, feminism was on the rise and women were encouraged to become independent and educated. That was considered attractive. So why the hell couldn’t Margarita be like that? She suffers through a loveless marriage yet does nothing to change her life around. Not until Azazello gives her the cream and turns her into a witch. And speaking of witches, I didn’t like that she flew around naked on a broomstick around Moscow (ugh, so many innuendos). The only thing I liked about Margarita was how she chose to use her wish on Frieda instead of herself. Woland must have been quite moved to because he did work a way around the deal so she could ask what she wanted for.

Woland was sinister in the best possible way. You’re not meant to side with the devil but the way he wreaked havoc on everyone and everything in his way without giving a damn was quite entertaining. Behemoth was defintely my favourite–a giant black cat sipping on cognac? Yes, please! Behemoth’s dry humour and insistence on pampering himself was hilarious. It was a shame that he only had a few scenes in the book. I’d totally read a novella about his shenanigans alone.

Writing Style

My maths teacher AND Daniel Radcliffe both consider this book as their favourite and that’s why I decided to get it over with. I had really high hopes for this novel but those hopes were mugged and shot in an alleyway. It was a bit like Lemony Snicket but boring. During a group call, I was ranting to my friends about how not-funny this book was. One of my friends told me since the book was written in 1966, it made sense that I didn’t understand the humour. I guess he was right but it’s infuriating that so many people seem to find it hilarious and love the book to bits.

Also, I spent ages choosing a translation and Pevear and Volokhonsky’s was the only one I could find. It does bother me that I won’t ever experience the book in its original language (unless I learn Russian but no thanks). Who knows, maybe the book is absolutely hilarious in Russian and a lot of things got lost in translation. I still am very grateful for the endnotes that were included in my copy. A lot of the references were obscure as hell and I would have been even more lost without them.